TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Stadium Foes: Contaminated Soil Could Cost Taxpayers
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 27, 2008
ST. PETERSBURG - Opponents of the Tampa Bay Rays' proposed downtown ballpark are questioning whether contaminated soil below the surface of Tropicana Field will leave taxpayers stuck with paying millions to clean up the 86-acre site if it is to be redeveloped.
Members of the anti-stadium group Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront voiced concerns at a news conference Wednesday about the unknown cost of environmental testing and cleanup if the site is to be transformed into a major mixed-use area with thousands of residences.
The city last week received redevelopment proposals from three national developers, two of whom have specified that any environmental remedy needed would be at the city's expense.
"Because of the nature of cleanup and remediation, you really don't know what it's going to cost and what it's going to entail until you get into it and start doing it," said Niel Allen, a local Realtor and member of POWW, the anti-stadium group. "It would be tantamount to writing a blank check."
He said it would be irresponsible for the city to authorize a November referendum on a new downtown waterfront ballpark without knowing what that cost would be.
The Rays are counting on money from the sale and redevelopment of Tropicana Field to pay for most of the $450 million cost of a ballpark the team wants to build at Progress Energy Park, home of spring training site Al Lang Field, by 2012.
Tropicana Field sits on the site of a coal gasification plant that operated from 1914 to 1962. The site received a $7 million cleanup before the then-Florida Suncoast Dome was built in the late 1980s. Nearly 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and disposed of.
More soil tainted by a layer of coal tar 13 feet below the surface was removed when the stadium underwent renovations for the arrival of major-league baseball in 1998.
St. Petersburg Internal Services Administrator Mike Connors said the city is aware of only a "modest" amount of contaminated soil remaining on the stadium grounds east of Booker Creek, buried by asphalt parking lots.
Monitoring wells have shown that the contaminants have remained stationary, have not leached into groundwater and pose no harm to the public or the environment, Connors said.
"I think it's a wonderful site for redevelopment opportunities," he said. "I would be genuinely surprised if this relatively minuscule amount of volatile organics would be cause for any concern in developing that site."
Connors said he didn't consider any cleanup that would be performed by the city "as anything onerous to this government."
The issue may arise when the city council is briefed on the redevelopment proposals at a 2 p.m. workshop today. Representatives of the three developers will be on hand. They are Houston-based Hines Interests, Archstone-Madison of Arlington, Va., and Williams Quarter of Tampa and Nashville, Tenn., a group that includes DeBartolo Holdings of Tampa.
Reporter Carlos Moncada can be reached at (727) 451-2333 or cmoncada@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( gronybabes ) on March 27, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
When are the constituents of this county and state going to stand up for the rights of the common tax payer. If they want the darn thing so badly obviously there is a financial windfall to it. Someone like Mr. Sternberg who has amassed a personal fortune of well over $500,000,000 doesn't get that by paying for things when he can get others to. If he wants it he should pay for it, otherwise, whatever liability for clean up that the city or county incurrs should be reimbursed by receiving a percentage of the gate or concession receipts from the new stadium until all the debt is paid including interest. City and county leaders need to start acting like businessman instead of handing it to businessman.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bill_H ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just one more reason this is a bad idea.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( atrulyconcernedcitizen ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mike Connors is disgusting and should be truly ashamed of himself. Is he willing to guarantee his statements by putting his job and whatever his retirement is on the line? Or is he like is compatriot Rick Mussett who sold us an 85 million dollar project with enough cost overruns that we still owe 109 million 20 years later!!! In the first go around Mussett and Hargrove budgeted 2 million for cleanup of the Dome. These buffoons are so incompetent that it ended up being 5.7 million almost 3X their projection throwing the 1991 City budget out of whack 4.5 million and causing the cancellation of several large city projects that year. How do people like Mussett and Connors keep their jobs? I know...close enough for Government work. How can anybody take these people seriously or pay any attention to them. Their records are so BAD they have NO CREDIBILITY.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tampaguy69 ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is a BAD idea from almost every angle. Forget about it unless the parties involved want to pay for the whole thing.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( NB ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Come on folks. I'm sure that site is clean. If it isn't, how much more could it cost? Maybe an extra $50 million; that's nothing on top of the half billion they want to spend. We can close the libraries on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and layoff most of our firemen and police officers to cover any surprises.
Doesn't this mayor deserve the best club seats we can afford to build for him? Maybe we can throw in that 'all you can eat' ticket option too.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( davej9398 ) on March 27, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You know its amazing how people can be very short sided. Can people not see the windfall that can be brought to the community with this stadium. The tax bills that those business and residents will have to pay will make this more than pay for the project. Its a very good idea and Mr. Sternberg is not asking for the taxpayers to fit the bill. He has come up with a very creative business idea that they proposed.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( NB ) on March 29, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Davej, more seriously I am in favor of redeveloping the Tropicana site (as provided for in the lease) and look forward to the City's 'windfall'. But, I object to the direct transfer of that windfall to Mr. Sternberg. We can redevelop the site and the City could earn hundreds of millions more in taxes. We don't need to waste that on a new facility for a privately owned business.
Report Inappropriate Comments